How to Read Philosophy

How to Read Philosophy
As a student who is new to philosophy, the task of writing a philosophy paper is usually the
first thing that you will focus on—and dread. However, what will become a more immediate
concern to you is getting through your philosophy text without getting disheartened and
overwhelmed. It is often difficult for newcomers to make sense out of some of the articles that you
are asked to read. The difficulties that you may discover are often simply because you are
unfamiliar with the writing styles of professional philosophers. In this brief section, I will offer
some ideas on how to work your way through the essays in this book. Two bits of advice, though:
First, do not read while lying down on a couch or in bed as you will probably want to drift off to
sleep. Second, you will have to read each article more than once. Sorry, but as a film professor of
mine told me: “If a film isn’t worth watching twice, it isn’t worth watching once.”
Part of your difficulty getting used to reading philosophy is that the styles that you will
encounter can be quite different than what you are familiar with. Styles can differ depending on the
author’s intended audience (Is it for laypeople or other philosophers?) and whether the article is a
translated work (Are you reading an English translation of a Greek text?). Even the century that the
work is drawn from will affect your reading comfort level. As well, the particular school of
thought that the author comes from can have significant impact on how the piece is presented (Is
the philosopher from the Analytic or Continental tradition?). Finally, the author’s own personality
and style will often come through his or her writing. So even though all philosophy papers have
the intent to convince the reader of some claim or other, how the author conveys his or her views
can vary considerably.
A philosopher's use of complicated phrases or sentences, the development of complex
arguments, combined with your limited experience, requires that you develop an active reading
skill. So without further ado, here are a few tips on how to better understand and therefore
appreciate philosophy papers.
I. UNDERSTANDING
First, skim over the article in order to get a general idea of what the author is trying to say.
Pay attention to the title and subtitles, as they will often inform you of the area of inquiry. Pay
attention to the opening paragraphs, since authors will sometimes offer summaries or overviews of
their paper (e.g., “In this paper it will be argued that . . . ”), or they will set the context of their
paper (i.e., the area of concern of their paper, the issue with which it will deal, or even to whom it
is in response).
You will want to make a note of the conclusion; this is what the author wants to convince
you of. Underline it or highlight it (assuming it is your own copy and not the library’s). Try to
write the conclusion down on a piece of paper in your own words, as that will help you remember
it. Now, go back to the beginning of the paper, and with the conclusion in mind, try to see how the
author tries to take you there. In other words, think of the challenge as being akin to rereading a
murder mystery novel: It was fun to try to figure out who the murderer was—you saw clues here
and there, and perhaps you were able to figure out some but others eluded you. Now that you know
who the culprit is, it can be fun to see how all the clues that you missed fit together. (This approach
is one reason why I do not like Agatha Christie novels: It seems to me that she never provided
enough clues and the murderer only shows up in the last five pages, so most of the novel is
irrelevant to its ending! Of course I am overstating my perception of her work, but you get the
idea: It is no fun reading something or watching a movie when the author brings in a character
right at the end with no previous connection to the story. Keep this in mind when you are planning
your own essay!)
As you are reading each paragraph, you will find that the first and last sentences often
provide you with key elements of the author’s thought process; here you may find a conclusion or
premise of an argument or sub-argument. Now I should explain these terms so that you can not only
analyze the essay you are reading but also create your own well-founded arguments later on.
An argument is a series of claims that are either true or false. Some of the claims are used
as evidence (called premises) for a further claim (the conclusion) that the arguer is trying to
persuade you to accept. The premise(s) are the reasons or supporting evidence or justification that
he or she offers to try to get you to accept his or her belief, position, or judgment. Consider the
following claim: “Kamloops, British Columbia is a great place to live.” Why? “Because it is a safe
place to live.” Why? “Because you can walk outside late at night and leave your house unlocked.”
Why? “Because everyone is friendly.” Why? “Because they are all Canadian…” and so on. The
first statement about Kamloops is the conclusion that I am trying to convince you of (although I
could have just as easily put it at the end of my argument). After each question, I offer a premise or
reason or claim that I use to defend or justify my conclusion. Each one of these points may or may
not be satisfactory. This argument may itself be used to defend a further claim. For example, I
could use this argument to try to convince you to move to Kamloops. In doing so, the argument
about Kamloops being a great place to live now becomes a subargument for my main conclusion
that you should move here.
It is important that the author does in fact offer you a reason—any reason—for the
conclusion; otherwise, they are just stating an opinion. If I said, “Universal health care is a good
thing,” you can either just smile or say something like, “That’s nice.” I have not given you
anything more than a simple statement on what I believe. I have just given you an unsupported
claim. Accordingly, while you may agree or disagree with my opinion, you do not know what to
make of it and so should never just accept it, even if you happen to agree, because I have not stated
any justification for my view. I must offer a defense of my position before you can determine if
you should rationally accept or reject it. Even if you agree with the opinion, you may not agree
with my reasoning, and that is just as important. Here is an example. I say: “I think capital
punishment is wrong.” You say: “I agree!” Then I say: “I think it is wrong because those
murdering bastards should be tortured slowly instead!” Now, because you did not wait to hear my
reason, you have, or you have at least given me the appearance that you have, bought into my
rather shocking perspective, but more than likely you would want to disagree with me. The moral
of the story is that people can agree on the same points but for different reasons and some of the
reasons may be good and others may be bad. Another quick example: You and I both agree that the
sum of 2 + 2 is not 5. You (correctly) believe that 2+2 does not equal 5 because it actually equals
4, while I (incorrectly) believe that 2+2 does not equal 5 because it equals "Tuesday." You must
consider both the premises and the conclusion before making a final judgment about whether the
argument is a good one or not.
In an argumentative essay such as those that you will be reading in this book, the
paragraphs are an opportunity for the author to offer a somewhat self-contained argument. As
noted earlier, each self-contained argument then may be intended to substantiate some larger
position of the author. Premise and conclusion indicator words will often (but not always) help you
distinguish the different parts of the arguments as well as distinguish arguments from nonarguments.
These useful words indicate or signal that there is a reason (or premise or evidence,
justification, etc.) being offered in support of a viewpoint (or conclusion). Premise indicator words
include because, since, due to, it follows from, and so on. Conclusion indicators include therefore,
accordingly, so, hence, and thus, among others. Such words then will help you follow and, if
necessary, reconstruct the argument of the author. If there are no indicator words and you suspect
that you are dealing with some part of an argument, try inserting an indicator word of your choice
to see if it makes sense.
When trying to capture the author’s argument, making notes in the margin is useful. For
example, beside each paragraph you might put a couple of words that highlight the topic of the
paragraph. Do not simply underline every word, since not everything the author will say will be
significant and/or relevant to the main thesis. For example, the author might provide you with
background factual information, editorial or introductory comments, and personal asides. See if the
author defines the terms that he or she is using. This is important as you want to make sure, before
you challenge the author's view, that you actually understand it. So look for stipulative definitions
whereby the author defines what he or she means by using a certain term (e.g., “By ‘universal
health care,’ I mean that everyone receives health care regardless of their ability to pay, regardless
of where they live, and regardless of the amount of responsibility or ‘blame-worthiness’ that they
have for causing their own injury or illness.”). See if the author offers distinctions between his or
her views and those of other authors (e.g., “It is a mistake to believe that a dualist shares the same
views with all anti-materialists.”). As well, look for the use of other writers’ ideas either as
supporting evidence or as positions that the author wants to refute (e.g., “In 1993, Balderson
argued (rightly/wrongly) that . . . ”). At a later date you may want to look those references up for
your own essay.
Next, try to put the main arguments (the premises and the conclusions) of the paper in your
own words. Make sure that what you believe the author is arguing for is in fact what the author
intended. This is a crucial step because sometimes people will misinterpret what the author has
written and then criticize them for the apparent views that they hold. This is known as committing
the Straw Person Fallacy. Simply put, it is easy to criticize someone for something when in fact it
is you, not he or she, who stated it!
Now notice the steps you have taken so far: (1) You have skimmed over the article to get a
general sense of what it is about. (2) You have put the conclusion (or what you think is the
conclusion) in your own words. (3) You have gone back to carefully reread the article to draw out
the various arguments that the author raises or rejects in his or her paper. Remember, not
everything that the author says is going to be a positive thesis. They will often argue against other
people at the same time, attempting to show why their opponent’s view is unsatisfactory and,
subsequently, why their own views are right. (4) You have taken these points (many of which you
have jotted down in the margins) and listed them on a piece of paper.
Take a moment to look at what you have. Do you follow the flow of the paper? Perhaps
you can draw arrows and diagrams connecting the various points. Do you understand what the
author has said and why he or she has said it? If not, what would you guess that you need to do?
Yes, you should probably read it again, and if that fails, ask well-formed questions of you
instructor or peers. For example, do not just say “I do not get it.” Try phrasing your question so
that it not only includes information about where you are confused but also includes your own
possible answer: “On page 34, the author states X, but I do not see how this fits with the
conclusion Z. Is the author saying that X leads to Y and that Y leads to Z?"
Once you understand the article only then can you go back and evaluate it.
II. EVALUATION
So, for sake of argument, let us assume that you have a reasonable grasp on that which the
author is trying to ultimately convince you. Now the question is, “Is the author successful in that
goal?” No one is saying you must accept or reject every single point made. Some arguments can
still survive even if you have cast doubt on some of the premises. Perhaps you will like the
argument in general but find a few weak areas that could be revised. Perhaps you will think the
argument is seriously flawed from the start. Whatever you believe, you will ultimately have to
convince others of the same.
Here is one approach that you can use to evaluate the author’s position. Let us call it the Stest.
Are the premises Satisfactory and do they Sufficiently Support the conclusion? First, you will
want to isolate the premises that the author offers to defend his or her conclusions and you will
want to consider whether or not they are rationally acceptable. This means, among other things,
that you will want to determine if the reason or premise has been defended in a deductively sound
or inductively strong subargument.
A deductively sound argument is an argument that is deductively valid, with premises that
are true. A deductively valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, it would be
impossible for the conclusion to be false. Notice that I have emphasized if. I am not saying that the
premises are in fact true. We are only imagining that they are for sake of analysis. You can have a
valid but unsound argument, but not a sound invalid argument. Deductive arguments are about
guarantying the certainty of the conclusion. For example, if all humans are mortal, and Jeff is a
human, it MUST follow that Jeff is mortal. Replace the subject and the predicates in this argument
with unknowns (e.g., X,Y,Z), and you can see that the conclusion still must follow: All X are Y
and Z is an X, then Z is an X too.
Here is another example. If I hold my breath for a long time, then I will pass out or gasp for
air. If I attempt to hold my breath for a long time, you can guess what will happen. I will pass out
or gasp for air! You might say, “Well, that is common knowledge.” True, but look at the structure
of the argument. If I am eighteen feet tall, then I can levitate dolphins. I tell you that I am eighteen
feet tall. What do you know? You know that I can levitate dolphins. For deductive validity, it does
not matter what the subject and the predicate are, as it is the structure not the content that is
important. Soundness on the other hand is concerned with the content. First, the argument has to
be checked for validity and then we ask "Are the premises in fact true?" for if they are we have a
deductively sound argument. If they are not, then we just have a valid one. Thus the "holding my
breath" version of the “IF A then B, A, therefore B” argument is sound, but the second version is
only valid.
Inductive arguments are arguments that are evaluated in terms of strength. We use these
types of arguments to make empirical predictions or generalizations. They do not guarantee the
conclusion; rather they provide a degree of rational persuasion for the conclusion to be considered
true. For example, if eight out of ten doctors tell you that you have the flu, then odds are that you
probably have the flu. If, during the autumn months you have noticed that the weather has been
turning cooler, then tomorrow will be cooler still. These are inductively strong arguments as the
premises are good indicators for the conclusion to be true. Still, they might be wrong. You may in
fact have some rare disease with flu-like symptoms. The weather might turn unseasonably hot
tomorrow. But if you were to deny the rational strength of these arguments then you would not be
able to function in life, let alone in a philosophy class.
The challenge then when you are assessing someone else’s argument is to determine if they
have provided you with premises and conclusions that allow you to say whether they have given
you good or bad arguments. Thus arguments can go wrong in two ways. First the premises may be
unsatisfactory or they may not support the conclusion appropriately.
The premises can be determined to be satisfactory on any number of grounds. I hesitate to
say "the premises are true," because although it is quite reasonable to claim, "No one has seen a
unicorn lately," I know some smart aleck will ask: "How do you know for sure? Have you asked
everyone?" Well, no. I have not, so I cannot know for sure, since I have not checked. I cannot
know for certain that it is true, although perhaps I can know for certain that that smart aleck is
annoying . . .
If the premises are true by definition or true by the meaning of the words alone, then we are
safe. For example, claiming "Mammals give birth to their young alive" is true by definition. I do
not need to go and verify this claim by checking every mammal out there.
Part of how we define mammal is by the fact that they give birth to their young alive. A
claim such as "The square room next door has four corners" is known to be true by the very
meaning of the word square. I do not need to go next door to count the number of corners in the
square room to know that it has to be four. However, if the claim was "The room next door is
square," it would need to be verified.
The premises can be satisfactory by an appeal to common knowledge, not just common
belief. There are lots of things that many people do believe or have believed that have turned out to
be false: that the world was flat or that they would win last week’s lottery. There are lots of things
that people believe that are controversial and thus open to debate: that slavery is acceptable or that
flat taxation is just. And finally there are things that people believe that cannot be verified: that
there is an afterlife or that if a tree falls in the forest it does (or does not) make a sound. In fact,
what counts as "knowledge" will not be discussed here—for that you should turn to the appropriate
readings in the text.
The premises can be considered satisfactory if they have been successfully defended
elsewhere by the author in a sub-argument, or in another article, or by another person. They can be
considered satisfactory if they are supported by a proper appeal to authority. This means that the
person to whom you are referring to is indeed an expert in the relevant area and the experts in that
area generally agree about the claim being made.
If, for some reason, you do not know if the premise is satisfactory and you do not have
evidence to suggest that it is unsatisfactory, then you may wish to provisionally accept it and move
on to evaluate the author’s other reasons. (This is one reason why we hear people say: “For
argument’s sake, let’s assume that you’re right.”) However, if you do not understand the argument,
do not use provisional acceptance as a way to justify your own intellectual laziness. Sometimes
understanding a point requires rereading a particular paper or doing a bit of background
investigation. For example, if the arguer keeps talking about another person’s argument, do you
need to go find out for yourself what the original person said? What is the context of the
argument? Do you need to familiarize yourself with details on the surrounding issues? Just as it is
inappropriate to walk in on another person’s conversation and start arguing with them (e.g., Bob:
"and so as I was saying." You, entering the room: "Hi Bob! You’re wrong!"), it is academically
inappropriate to start arguing against an author before you get the full story. If you have to, do
some research!
Research does not have to be confined to the task of tracking down other lengthy books.
You can try a philosophy encyclopedia for good overviews of topics and philosophers. You can try
a philosophy dictionary for help on terminology. You can talk to your peers; you can ask for
directed assistance from your instructor and so forth. Research in this sense is simply taking
responsibility in finding out what you need to know in order to make a well-reasoned decision
about the piece that you are evaluating.
Once you have determined whether the premises are themselves satisfactory, the next stage
of your evaluation will involve determining if the premises support the conclusion. In other words,
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education. All Right Reserved.
14
are they positively relevant to the conclusion? To be positively relevant, the truth of the premise
will count toward the truth of the conclusion. For example, the premise: “It is sunny and warm
today” is positively relevant to the conclusion: “I should wear shorts and a T-shirt if I want to
avoid being uncomfortable today.” Whereas the premise: “All ravens are black” is not relevant to
the same conclusion (namely, “I should wear shorts and a T-shirt if I want to avoid being
uncomfortable today.”).
Only after determining if the reasons support the conclusion may you then consider
whether or not the author has provided sufficient support for you to rationally accept the
conclusion. That the suspect hated the victim supports the claim that he killed the victim but it
clearly is not sufficient support. However, that the suspect voluntarily confessed to the crime and
that he left DNA and a home movie where he is seen shooting the victim would probably convince
the jury. When determining if there is an appropriate and strong relationship between premises and
conclusions, there are a few things one should consider. Imagine someone said: “University
courses are hard.” They would require extensive argumentation to try to convince you of this
claim. In fact, they would fail to do this because:
1. The claim is ambiguous. Do they mean all university courses are hard or some
university courses are hard?
2. Are they just claiming that all the courses that they have personally taken are hard?
3. Are they using their personal experience of university courses to try to support the
claim that university courses in general (i.e., even the ones they have not taken) are
difficult?
4. What do they mean by hard? Time-consuming? Intellectually challenging? A
combination of both?
After you point out these problems, you could then tell the person what he or she IS able to
conclude based on the evidence provided. Are you trying to draw a generalization? Does he or she
want to claim "All university courses are . . . " or "Most are . . . " or "Some are . . . ?" Depending
on the scope of the proposition, that is, the quantity that is being referred to (i.e., few, some, many,
most, all), then the number of examples offered needs to be appropriate. Clearly if one wants to
claim that most birds are black, then there will need to be more examples of black birds given
rather than fewer. But if the claim is that some students are tall, then just a handful of examples
will suffice.
Backing away from a universal claim (e.g., All dogs are friendly) does not necessarily
mean that you are giving a weaker argument. Indeed, it may be stronger. For if you state, "All dogs
are friendly," then your opponent only needs to find one example of a dog that is not friendly to
defeat your argument. However, if you said, "Most dogs are friendly," then that one unfriendly dog
does not hurt your position. You could respond: "I did not say all dogs are friendly, nor did I say
THAT dog is friendly, I just said 'most'!"
Another feature to watch for is the degree of certainty that is used in the proposition. Is the
person claiming, "I know for sure that there is a test next week"? Or are they simply claiming,
"There might be a test next week"? The standard of the evidence for the former statement will be
much more demanding than the latter. Again, you need to assess how much evidence there is to
determine how strong a claim can be put forward. Obviously, you could (or may need to) weaken
your claim, but then its persuasive effect will be lost. For example, which claim sounds more
interesting: “The home team will win the championship" or "There is a possibility that the home
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education. All Right Reserved.
15
team might win the championship"? No one would probably (!) deny the second statement because
all the home team has to do is show up for the claim to be substantiated so why waste your time
(and theirs) arguing for such a point? So while you may need to back down from being too
confident in stating your conclusion, at the same time you do not want to present a meek position
when the evidence is clearly in your favor!
Finding satisfactory premises that supply sufficient support for a conclusion entails that
you be actively engaged in critical thinking. And as mentioned at the outset, you cannot just read
about how to develop these skills because in order to learn, you have to do.
Copyright